A number of California’s natural gas power plants are located in low-income communities of color. For decades, these communities have unjustly carried the burden of powering our state and paid the highest price — their health — for dirty energy. The good news is that, according to an analysis just released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, California can retire a significant amount of natural gas generation because it is no longer needed. The bad news is that as California increases its reliance on renewable energy, an unintended consequence is that existing natural gas plants could get dirtier.

The UCS analysis also found that without an alternative to natural gas to meet evening electricity needs when the sun goes down and solar generation subsides, plants not retired are likely to turn on and off much more frequently. This “cycling”—can result in up to 30 times more nitrogen oxide pollution (NOx, a cause of smog) per hour than continuous operation. So even as total greenhouse gas emissions are dropping because we are relying on more renewable energy, communities near natural gas plants could see increased pollution that poisons their air. It’s crucial that air quality regulations limit these poisonous spikes and we prioritize clean energy alternatives and phase out all fossil fuel power plants as soon as possible.

California Senate Bill 64 (SB 64, Weickowski), currently under consideration by the California Legislature, is a step in the right direction. It would require the California Air Resources Board to publish data on the hourly change in emissions, startups and shutdowns of natural gas plants in the state. SB 64 would also require state agencies to work together to identify ways to reduce global warming and air pollution emissions, placing a priority on reducing emissions in communities most impacted by air pollution. While we need to phase out natural gas power plants by bringing more renewable energy onto our electricity grid, we must not allow the transition to unjustly impose further burdens on communities that have been polluted by our energy system. SB 64 is a necessary safeguard to help prevent low-income communities of color from continuing to sacrifice their health for the greater good.

Lily Bello, a youth leader at CAUSE is one of many youth who testified before the California Energy Commission in October 2017 to oppose the building of the Puente Gas Plant in Oxnard. She said, “I’m somebody who lives in Oxnard, who spends their entire day here, and I have asthma. I’ve missed out on so much of my childhood because I could not breathe. I just recently found out that power plants cause asthma. It’s a reality. It affects us…. my life should be a little bit more important than the [money] put in a billionaire’s pocket.”

Like Lily, I also grew up in Oxnard. As a young girl I often visited a beach near my home over which a behemoth power plant loomed. Decades later, I fought as an attorney to stop the construction of Puente – yet another power plant planned on this “industrial beach” – together with Oxnard’s youth who refused to allow their community to serve as a dumping ground. After years of struggle, the proposal for the Puente power plant was suspended in January 2018 by the California Energy Commission and effectively died, granting the community a chance to reclaim their beach – and breathe easier.

We must continue to hold the line and say no more to air pollution from gas fired power plants, and yes to a future that is clean, renewable, rooted in the leadership of our communities, and that creates a worker-centered transition to a new energy economy. The good news is we have the solutions in hand, illustrated by our recent victories in bringing rooftop solar energy to multifamily affordable housing (SOMAH) and net metering.

Two California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) actions have also recently put us on the right path. One is analysis the CPUC conducted as part of the Integrated Resource Plan proceeding that concluded there is no need for new gas-fired capacity through 2030. A second is a CPUC ruling that ordered PG&E to seek proposals for solar, demand response, or energy storage to avoid renewing contracts with three Calpine gas plants to provide local grid reliability needs. This is a key step that can minimize the need to depend on gas in certain areas for local grid needs, instead providing energy from cleaner sources and battery storage. Now is the time for the us to work towards furthering the retirement of old plants and stop building new ones.

The California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) and our member organizations work with communities that are the most affected by natural gas power plants: they must be prioritized in the clean energy economy. That’s why at CEJA we promote community-owned energy resilient systems as a critical step towards retiring natural gas plants — both by large-scale solar and storage models, as well as decentralized and distributed energy systems. These systems can create opportunities to build wealth through ownership, clean and renewable energy for the neighborhood without the need for firing-up a gas plant, and badly needed jobs to implement these solutions. We must increasingly demand public investment and prioritization of community-owned energy resiliency systems such as microgrids, solar and storage, and emergency energy systems in disadvantaged communities.

Our transition away from fossil fuels and toward a renewable energy economy must be smart and just. SB 64 is an important step to ensure that environmentally disadvantaged communities, such as Oxnard, also benefit from our state laws that seek to improve the quality of life of all Californians. By creating more transparency and accountability about our natural gas plants, we can both better hold our regulators and energy producers accountable, and work toward cleaner air for communities of color. Indeed, by passing SB 64, California, as a whole will continue on its path of being a national leader in taking on climate change.

Gladys Limon is Executive Director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA), where she brings 15 years of experience in legal, policy, and community-based work for environmental justice and civil rights. CEJA is a statewide, community-led alliance that works to achieve environmental justice by advancing policy solutions, uniting powerful local organizing in low-income communities of color most impacted by environmental and growing the statewide movement for environmental health and social justice. Previously, Ms. Limon was an attorney at Communities for a Better Environment pursuing high stakes environmental justice cases in southern California, and with the Mexican-American Legal Defense Education Fund, litigating cases concerning anti-immigrant laws, racial discrimination, and the rights of low-income immigrant workers.

Nicole Hernandez Hammer is a sea-level researcher, climate change expert and environmental justice advocate. A Guatemalan immigrant, Ms. Hernandez Hammer works to address the disproportionate impacts of climate change on communities across the US. Most recently, Ms. Hernandez Hammer served as the climate science and community advocate at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She was the Florida field manager for Moms Clean Air Force, and an environmental blogger for Latina Lista. Before that, she was the assistant director of the Florida Center for Environmental Studies at Florida Atlantic University, and coordinated the Florida Climate Institute’s state university consortium.

She has co-authored a series of technical papers on sea level rise projections, impacts and preparedness. Her activism and initiative on climate change earned her an invitation from First Lady Michelle Obama to be her special guest at the 2015 State of the Union address.

Nicole speaks across the country on climate change issues. Most recently, she presented at the 2018 National Hispanic Medical Association Conference and the MIT Cambridge Science Festival. She has done extensive media work and has been featured in National Geographic’s The Years of Living Dangerously, Amy Poehler’s Smart Girls, The New Yorker, MSNBC, the Miami Herald, Telemundo News, Univision.com, The Huffington Post, PRI Science Friday, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Grist, NPR and other major news sources.

Our home is on the water and the water is part of who we are. My Dad paid for grad school by clamming in the bay and was the first in his family to get a college degree. I was compelled to return home in 2012, after my Gram suffered a stroke in August and then Superstorm Sandy devastated my family and community the following October. Since her passing away this past September, my home now means even more to me.

I understand the risks I face, that our communities face, from storm surge, sea level rise, and flooding. And sure, someone on the outside might say, “why don’t you just leave?” Leaving home would be like losing a family member. And my community doesn’t cut bait and run—we stand together and fight.

When I look around my living room I hear my Grandmother tell me she’s glad I live here now, and I am too.

Facing the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy

In the year or so after Sandy in 2012, it quickly became clear that New Jersey’s working families were struggling to recover and rebuild. I started talking to folks to figure out why and how, and what we could do. As a long-time community organizer, I knew the “experts” were the people on the frontlines of the disaster, and if we fought together we would win. We had to act—two years after the storm, less than 500 families in the state’s homeowner recovery program were back and rental assistance programs were ending.

Fast forward to today, and that group of amazing community members and leaders across New Jersey’ most impacted counties has built a powerful grassroots organization. Nearly four years later we are proud of the changes community leadership has created—New Jersey now has a rental assistance program and a state law to slow or stop foreclosures on Sandy families (learn more here).

Our community worked together to move an agenda based on what we experienced and needed. Now we have the opportunity to be continuing protagonists in our own story.

Documenting Sandy’s toll on people’s lives

Here’s what’s hard. Despite that good work, the storm still took a toll. Last October we released a report, The Long Road Home, based on a survey of more than 500 Sandy-impacted families. The report measured how they were doing between four and five years after the storm.

The findings show that the health and economic impacts of Sandy have been significant. Fifty-six percent had trouble paying bills and/or affording food and gas since the storm—with some families reporting that things became more difficult in the last two years as storm-related problems dragged on.

In addition to shouldering the cost of rebuilding, 41 percent of respondents say their livelihood was affected by Sandy. Factors associated with job loss include losing a job or hours at a job because of Sandy; the impact of the storm on a family-owned business; the demands of dealing with the recovery process; and health issues that worsened or developed after the storm.

Thirty-two percent of families fell behind on mortgage/rent payments, taxes, or other expenses related to their Sandy-damaged homes. And more than 70 percent of respondents reported that they had developed new physical or mental health problems or a worsening of pre-existing health conditions since Sandy.

Many individuals described anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorders, often in combination with respiratory, cardiovascular, or other conditions. Many people also described an increased dependence on alcohol, tobacco products, or drugs. Of families with children, nearly 40 percent report that their children’s school performance has suffered because of the difficulties their family has faced since the storm.

Preparing for rising seas and chronic flooding

These hard-earned lessons tell us something critical. We learned from Sandy that programs meant to help us could be used for political gain, or benefited banks more than homeowners, or were not sufficient, or simply did not exist.

Indeed, new research from the Union of Concerned Scientists highlights the risk to New Jersey coastal homes, which are among the most exposed. It includes some sobering details:

New Jersey is second in the nation, behind Florida, for most homes at risk from chronic flooding due to rising seas, both in 2045 and by the end of the century. By 2045, more than 62,000 of today’s residential properties in New Jersey, valued at about $27 billion today and currently home to about 80,000 people, are at risk of chronic inundation. Of New Jersey’s beach towns, 10 are projected to have at least 1,500 homes at risk by 2045, with Ocean City topping the list at more than 7,200. The total number of at-risk residential properties jumps to about 251,000—currently worth more than $107 billion and home to roughly 376,000 people—by 2100.

The New Jersey homes at risk in 2045 currently contribute about $390 million in annual property tax revenue. The homes at risk by 2100 currently contribute roughly $1.7 billion collectively in annual property tax revenue, which places New Jersey second in the U.S. for largest possible hit to its municipal property tax base.

Many of the New Jersey communities facing chronic inundation in the next 30 years are home to people with fewer resources to adapt. Communities such as Monmouth Beach and West Cape May for instance, which have elderly population rates above the national average, could see more than 15 percent of their homes at risk by 2045. And in communities such as Atlantic City and Wildwood, 40 percent of homes at risk by 2045 and roughly one-third of residents are living below the national poverty line.

Moving forward

As a nation, there are clear steps we can take. We need to modernize the National Flood Insurance Program, so it prioritizes flood mitigation measures and allows families to get out of harm’s way, and we need to ramp up investment in FEMA’s pre-disaster hazard mitigation grant program.

When families remain in harm’s way because they can’t, or don’t want to, make investments in flood-proofing to prepare, we can’t trap them in a no-win scenario: stay and keep getting flooded and rebuilding, or sell the house knowing they’re selling the next family the same dead-end scenario.

Families should have the opportunity for a fair buyout, so they can be economically stable while also ensuring the property they leave remains undeveloped. Returning the land to open space can help protect nearby neighbors from flooding. We all need to have a more accurate picture of who and what is at risk—and that means more accurate flood risk maps. At the same time, we need robust affordability provisions for insurance and flood-proofing investments so people like me aren’t just priced out of our homes.

It’s up to us

Sandy taught us something key—you are either at the table, or you are on the menu. Now we need to take those lessons and apply them to face a future of rising seas and increased tidal flooding—and the worsening risks and damages that come with it when we have major storms.

It’s up to us to make sure our health and economic well-being are key considerations as we plan to address whatever future we face. If and when there are heartbreakingly tough decisions to make about the future of our homes and communities, we make them—and no one makes them for us.

I have faith in us. We look out for each other and help one another weather storms. It’s time for us to tackle the question of what rising seas and increased flooding mean, together.

Ice sheets on land in Greenland and Antarctica are melting, adding water to the world's oceans.Photo: NASA

On May 15, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Fred Singer which argued that rising sea levels are unrelated to global warming, that they won’t be much of a problem, and that there’s little we can do about them. Singer, whose history of disingenuous attacks on science on behalf of the tobacco, fossil fuel and other industries goes back nearly 50 years, is wrong on all counts.

Singer acknowledges that “sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate,” but then argues that “the cause of the trend is a puzzle.” Perhaps Singer is puzzled as to the causes, but science is crystal clear about this. Worse, we know that without strong policy to limit CO2 emissions, the rising water will continue to accelerate, inundating all the coastal cities of the world.

Fundamentally, there are three reasons why the ocean is rising at an accelerating rate

Adding heat to things causes them to change temperature (1st Law of Thermodynamics)

Seawater volume increases with temperature (thermal expansion)

Adding a volume of water to the oceans from melting land ice causes them to increase in height (conservation of water)

All three of these principles (conservation of energy and mass, and the thermal expansion of water) are bedrock principles of physics which have been established for centuries and can easily be verified by direct observation.

The effect of rising CO2 on the energy budget of the Earth is directly measured in the laboratory, from towers, from balloons and aircraft, and from satellites. We measure precisely how much extra heat is absorbed globally by CO2 because of burning carbon, all the time. Adding heat to the world causes it to warm up, for precisely the same reason that adding heat to a pot of water on the stove causes the temperature of the water to increase.

When water warms up, it expands

The precise increase in seawater volume with temperature is easy to measure and extremely well known. Nearly all the resulting change in heat content (more than 90%) is in the oceans, where temperatures are measured at all depths by thousands of autonomous instruments floating at different depths. Oceanographers know the three-dimensional temperature and density of the oceans worldwide to amazing precision from these floating sensors. Since 1992, we have also tracked rising sea levels everywhere on Earth by measuring the height of the ocean from space using laser altimeters. The expansion of the warming seas measured by the floats is completely consistent with the rising surface of the water measured by the lasers.

As the world warms, ice sheets on land in Greenland and Antarctica are melting, adding water to the oceans.

Just as we directly measure the effect of CO2 on heat and the effect of that heat on ocean temperatures and sea level, we also have satellite measurements of the volume and mass of the great ice sheets. The height of the ice is measured by radar and the mass is measured by the gravitational pull of the ice itself. These data show precisely how much water from the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica is added to the oceans each year. The total rise in sea level is completely consistent with the additions from land ice and ocean expansion, all of which are precisely measured all over the Earth and to the bottom of the oceans.

The reason that sea levels are rising faster and faster is because every bit of coal, oil, and gas we burn adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere, absorbing more of the Earth’s radiant heat, and contributing more to the thermal expansion of seawater and the loss of land ice. This is not a mystery. It’s extremely well understood and documented by millions of direct measurements.

The oceans will continue to rise faster and faster unless the world implements very strong policy to quickly reduce and eventually eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. Depending on how quickly these policies are put in place, seas will rise between one and eight feet by 2100, according to a 2017 report from the federal government, released under the Trump Administration. Without strong policy, coastal cities in the US and around the world will be inundated and abandoned.

Rising oceans are but one devastating consequence of inexorable global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. Luckily, it’s not too late to prevent the damage to the world and our economy. Nearly all the world’s nations have agreed to limit warming by cutting emissions. Maybe somebody should tell Fred Singer.

NASA

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/heres-why-seas-are-rising-somebody-remind-the-wall-street-journal/feed4https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/heres-why-seas-are-rising-somebody-remind-the-wall-street-journalScience — The Hidden Gem at the Heart of the EPA and Why You Should Support Ithttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationGuestCommentary/~3/7ViklaigJJ8/science-the-hidden-gem-at-the-heart-of-the-epa-and-why-you-should-support-it
https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/science-the-hidden-gem-at-the-heart-of-the-epa-and-why-you-should-support-it#respondTue, 08 May 2018 12:53:42 +0000https://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=58480

Photo: skynesher/iStockphoto

The role of science in EPA decision-making might, in the vocabulary of former President George W. Bush, be the most “misunderestimated” part of the EPA’s job. Although their work is the foundation of virtually every EPA decision—from regulatory protections to reviews of new chemicals to Superfund cleanups—agency scientists have labored for years under the radar. Career and political professionals appreciate and routinely rely on their work, but their invaluable contributions remain largely invisible.

Not any longer. Scott Pruitt’s obvious distaste for science has pushed EPA science into the headlines. We’ve gone from a norm in which a top-ranking EPA science policy figure was on virtual speed dial to the administrator to a Pruitt-era multi-faceted attack on the scientists themselves. Initially Pruitt ignored them, then tried to defund them, and is now attempting to hobble their work.

An attempt to slash the EPA’s Science and Technology Account

Let’s start with the 2019 Trump/Pruitt proposed budget, which is virtually identical to their 2018 proposal that was fortunately soundly rejected by the Congress. The 2019 budget would cut the EPA’s Science and Technology budget by 49%. The specifics—all programs funded by the S&T Account that President Trump proposes cutting—illustrate the insult to the health and safety of the American public.

A 67% cut to the “Air and Energy” account that looks at how air pollution damages our health and well-being. This is essential information as the EPA decides which pollutants must be reduced and at what levels, and prepares the country to respond to climate change. The Trump budget would ax these programs despite analysis showing that since 1990 the American public has reaped clean air benefits to the tune of $2 trillion compared to estimated costs of $65 billion. Need one good example? This program helps advance the development and use of lower-cost, portable, and user-friendly monitoring devices individuals can use in their own communities to find out what they and their families are breathing. Why cripple one of the EPA’s biggest public health success stories when we actually need to be investing more in our clean air?

A 37% cut in “Safe and Sustainable Water Resources” to protect the lakes, streams, and rivers across our country from which we get drinking water and where we fish, swim, and boat. This research is an essential part of making sure water bodies are healthy, that valuable water isn’t overwhelmed by pollution from factories and other industrial processes. You only have to look at the role of EPA scientists in monitoring and evaluating algae blooms in Toledo, Ohio that endangered drinking water for millions of people, or Flint, Michigan’s problems with lead in drinking water to understand why this account should be funded at even greater levels than it is today.

A 61% cut in “Research on Sustainable Communities.” Cities and states across the country rely on the research and planning tools developed in this program as they go about their jobs assuring good environmental and health outcomes. This research also develops and demonstrates new and improved techniques for environmental protection. For example, program researchers found a way to estimate how drinking water, food, dust, soil and air contribute to blood lead levels in infants and young children.

A 34% cut in “Research on Chemical Safety and Sustainability” to evaluate how thousands of chemicals, existing and under development, might affect people’s health and the environment. This research allows the EPA to develop the scientific knowledge, tools and models to conduct integrated, timely, and efficient chemical evaluations. Getting a bit wonky here—because I was personally involved in this effort and watched it grow from a concept to being the international leader in innovating approaches to chemical hazard: this account supports the EPA’s work in computational toxicology, which in turn helps the EPA take on the herculean task assigned it by the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act to analyze possibly thousands of chemicals for potential risk. The tool integrates knowledge from biology, biotechnology, chemistry, and computer science to identify important biological processes that may be disrupted by the chemicals and thereby sets priorities for their review based on potential human health risks. Risking that program should be a non-starter.

Political takeover of science

Scott Pruitt’s most recent attack on science at the EPA is a back-door attempt to institutionalize a very damaging idea that has failed to be enacted by Congress over multiple years. Pruitt is trying to railroad through a regulation that would throw out scientific studies used in setting EPA rules and other requirements unless the raw data on which the studies are based are made publicly available.

Why is this a terrible idea and threatening to public health? For five decades, EPA’s regulatory protections have relied on many thousands of health-related studies of pollutants, including epidemiological, human, and animal studies. Many examine the relationship between concentrations of various pollutants and their impacts on people’s health.

The raw data on which these studies are based often includes names, dates of birth and death, health, lifestyle information, and subjects’ locations—data that is personally damaging if released and has almost nothing to do with public understanding or the validity of the study’s results. Ethical and legal considerations rightly keep scientists from releasing such personal data. Restricting the use of the data cuts two ways, as often it is submitted by industry in support of its activities as well by groups that are arguing for more stringent regulatory controls. There are certainly ways to confirm independently the validity of the studies as has been done with two keystone air quality studies by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), an organization jointly funded by EPA and the industry.

The Pruitt proposal creates other problems as well: so much time has passed since the leading studies of the impacts of air pollution were compiled in the early 1990s that it would be logistically difficult to retrieve and redact all of the underlying data; this would effectively prevent the use of the most authoritative data available on the impacts of air pollution.

Put in plainer language, Pruitt’s latest attack on science is not good for anyone—industry or the general public.

Attacks on science hit locally

There are many practical, local examples of why cutting science funding is so pernicious and bad for everyone. The EPA, for example, plays a role in the cleanup of Anchorage, Alaska’s Elmendorf Air Force Base and for that had the assistance of another federal body, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which examined blood samples taken from residents at the base. ATSDR concluded on the basis of science that lead exposure there did not pose a health hazard. There is no way to make such determinations without science and data, in this case medical data such as blood sample test results, which are critical in drawing valid conclusions as to whether regulated facilities, such as Superfund cleanup sites, cause health effects in nearby communities.

Another notable example is the remote native village of Kivalina in Northwestern Alaska, which is downstream from Red Dog Mine. Unsurprisingly, Kivalina residents are worried about how mining activities might threaten their health by contaminating subsistence foods from their hunting and gathering activities. Personal medical data taken from Kivalina residents was analyzed to determine that Kivalina residents and their food are unlikely to be at risk. The same form of analysis of environmental impacts has been used at other sites such as the long-running cleanup efforts of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana.

The EPA’s seminal achievements over almost 50 years include removing lead from gasoline; reducing acid rain to improve water quality; reducing second-hand smoke exposure; improving vehicle efficiency and emission controls; and encouraging a shift to rethinking of wastes as materials.

Evaluating and acting on science—the best available science—and having the funding to ensure science expertise is on tap at the EPA is the linchpin to any one of these. Congress and the American public should tell Pruitt to back off from his attacks on EPA science and make sure the agency has the funding it needs to do its job.

Robert Kavlock is the former Acting Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Research and Development and an EPA Science Advisor (retired). He is currently a member of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit organization of EPA alumni working to protect the agency’s progress toward clean air, water, land and climate protections.

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) states that as Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology he seeks facts about climate change, and that his Committee follows “the scientific method.” These are welcome and vitally important positions for a powerful Congressman to take on a topic of such vital national interest. It is essential that scientific evidence be the foundation for legislative action about climate change.

Unfortunately, in his article Mr. Smith does not seek facts or apply the scientific method. Instead, he makes claims that are contrary to established facts, and provides no evidence or analysis to support his assertions as the scientific method requires.

For example, Smith claims “United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has affirmed that they have “low confidence” in climate change contributing to extreme weather.” Actually, the IPCC stated that “a changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”

Smith notes that “U.S. wildland fires are decreasing in frequency,” which is a trend under investigation using the scientific method of proposing and testing alternate hypotheses. For example, the decrease could represent an impact of a change in climate, but it could easily be the result of successful fire prevention strategies. But Mr. Smith does not consider alternate hypotheses as the scientific method requires. Instead, he concludes that reduced fire frequency proves climate change does not increase the frequency of such extreme events.

Meanwhile, Mr. Smith completely ignores the data demonstrating the total acres burned in wildfires is going up, which is the fact that constitutes the major threat to people around the world. The most recent assessment for the US states, “The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate changes, with profound changes to regional ecosystems.” Ignoring data is a luxury that only politicians can indulge in, as any scientist who does won’t get manuscripts through peer review.

This is reminiscent of when Mr. Smith accused NOAA scientists of “altering the data,” calling their published scientific analyses of atmospheric temperatures “skewed and biased,” a claim made with no accompanying analysis or evidence. In fact, NOAA scientists were using the scientific method to identify the bias that exists in temperature measuring instruments and making their data more accurate by taking this bias into account. We all apply this same process when we compare the results of different bathroom scales, time pieces, meat thermometers, or fuel gauges in cars. This is an example of Mr. Smith practicing intimidation, not science, as noted by the American Meteorological Society.

Smith claims in his article that he is called a “climate denier” because he “questions assertions,” which again demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The reason Mr. Smith is called a “climate denier” is because he questions scientific conclusions without providing an alternate explanation for existing observations. A true skeptic would propose an alternative, testable hypothesis for observations.

For example, our release of greenhouse gases has raised the average temperature of the ocean by a little over half a degree Fahrenheit, which represents an amount of energy (1023 joules) that is 10 billion times the amount of energy (1013 joules) released by the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

A true skeptic of global warming must propose an alternative explanation for how all of this energy has accumulated if greenhouse gases are not responsible. Skeptics have suggested changes in the sun’s energy output as an alternate explanation, but it is now well established that the sun’s energy output has actually been declining over the last few decades. In fact, the brightness of the Sun is at a record low right now. True skeptics would also propose an explanation for why greenhouse gases are not causing the earth to heat up, given that we know these gases trap heat.

Mr. Smith cannot offer such explanations because they do not exist. Instead, as we see from the examples above, he attempts to misrepresent or ignore existing evidence. This is deeply unfortunate given Mr. Smith’s position in Congress. Those who seek nonpartisan, evidence-based policies to address the impacts of climate change must demand that their representatives based their positions on facts supported by the scientific method.

While Smith states that “climate alarmists just won’t let the facts get in the way of their science fiction,” analyzing his own claims demonstrate that the fiction is being propagated by Mr. Smith.

Andrew Gunther is executive director of the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, and a board member at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He has published research in the field of ecotoxicology and has extensive experience in applying science to the development of air, water, and endangered species policy. Dr. Gunther served as the assistant chief scientist for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Program from 1991 to 2002, and is currently the executive coordinator of the Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium.

America is awakening to the reality that our country’s energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables—while cutting pollution and creating new jobs in many places—is painful for Appalachian families.

For generations, our communities have depended on coal-mining jobs and the businesses supported by the coal industry. Nationally, coal-mining employment fell from just over 91,000 in 2011 to under 66,000 in 2015, with West Virginia and Kentucky among the largest declines. This transition won’t be a just and fair one until our communities are made whole.

But in this challenging time there is real opportunity, if we have the courage to seize it. This can be the moment when we finally start not just talking about our potential as a region, but actually realizing it.

Our story

I founded Coalfield with much love from West Virginians for West Virginians. I was born and raised in the state. While I was fortunate to have a solid, middle-class upbringing, I was always aware of the pain going on around me. In college, I became a committed member of a Presbyterian Church, which fostered in me a deep commitment to social justice. We learned from and were inspired by people making a way forward in tough places all over the world: migrant workers in apple orchards, communities of color, low-income communities, and native people on reservations. I even had the chance to travel to Botswana and Nepal on behalf of the church.

But everywhere I went, I had the nagging sense that these were amazing places and amazing people, but they weren’t my place. I felt I could have a big impact back home, where the need was great and growing greater. So in 2011, joined by my best friend from high school, I decided to try and do things differently for our state to show that we could be more than just one industry and just one trade.

Since then, I’ve had the honor of seeing a former mine-industry worker go from being homeless, to joining our construction work-crew, to becoming a homeowner. I’ve seen people walk across the stage and become the first in their family to earn a college degree. We’ve installed the first solar systems many of our small towns have seen. We employ former strip miners who now reclaim and rejuvenate the soil through our agriculture work on former mountaintop-removal sites.

At Coalfield Development, we support a family of social enterprises that work in community-based real-estate, green-collar construction, mine-land reclamation, artisan trades, sustainable agriculture, and solar installation. These are real business enterprises that have real economic potential in central Appalachia. These are enterprises that are beginning to diversify the local economy in a tangible way.

Each enterprise has sustainable revenue models, including earned revenue (contracts, sales, service fees, etc.) and, thus, long-term sustainability. They are unified by an innovative model for workforce development and training that we at Coalfield developed.

We recognized that job training programs are insufficient—people need jobs to support themselves and their families. Our model puts people to work while developing new skills. Under the 33-6-3 model, each of the enterprises hires unemployed people to work the following weekly schedule: 33 hours a week are spent doing paid labor for these enterprises on projects which tangibly improve the community; 6 hours a week are devoted to core community college classes for an Applied Science degree; and 3 hours are committed to life skills coaching, such as parenting, financial management, time management, physical health, teamwork, communication, and goal setting. Some of the 33 hours of manual labor even count as on-the-job credits applied towards the academic degree (according to curriculum agreements in place with the community colleges).

So yes, we are feeling great pain in the face of the coal industry’s decline, but we’re not just dying towns. We are also hard at work ensuring that great things, very creative endeavors, are afoot. We’re persistent problem-solving communities, who love our home and are steadfastly committed to it.

National attention

An exciting policy development in 2015 was the creation of the POWER Initiative (Partnerships and Opportunities in Workforce and Economic Revitalization), a federal initiative to support community efforts to diversify our local economy. This provided the Appalachian Regional Commission with its largest budget since the 1970’s, which led to major support for innovative efforts like ours.

This is an appropriate role for the government to play: funding research and development for early stage, pre-market business concepts that lead to real economic growth in communities that need it.

As we work to adapt, to diversify our economy, and to shape a better future, we need the country to believe in and support us. The country should not blame us for climate change—miners only ever mined coal because there was demand for it. Anyone who has turned on a light switch is just as much to blame for climate change as a coal miner, if not more so.

What’s needed now is local solutions driven by local people. And then we need national and global investments to support our strategies. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is doing just that. Incredibly, he announced $3 million in grant funding to support coal communities in conjunction with the premiere of the National Geographic documentary From the Ashes, which tells our story along with the stories of many other coal-impacted communities. We’re honored to be a grantee, and we hope others around the world will follow suit by investing in our region. One way to do this is by checking out our Crowdrise campaign page to donate.

Brandon Dennison is the founder and CEO of Coalfield Development Corporation, a family of social enterprises working throughout coal country to help build a new economy in the wake of the coal industry’s rapid decline.

Photo: Coalfield Development Corporation

]]>https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/west-virginia-coal-plant/feed2https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/west-virginia-coal-plantThe Struggle for a Just Transition of the Crawford Coal Plant in Little Village Continueshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEquationGuestCommentary/~3/-S8fjWX5S5M/chicago-coal-plant-closure
https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/chicago-coal-plant-closure#respondTue, 10 Oct 2017 04:01:13 +0000http://blog.ucsusa.org/?p=54010

On August 12, 2017, our organization, the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), held a gathering at La Villita Park in the Little Village neighborhood to celebrate the five-year anniversary of the closing of the Crawford and Fisk coal plants in Chicago. With community members and youth leaders in attendance, it was a special opportunity for LVEJO to remind everyone of the many years of community organizing and coalition building that took place, and to thank long-time friends and allies from neighboring Pilsen, who were pivotal to the campaign.

The commemoration was a sweet time, but it was also a reminder for us that five years later Little Village continues to face serious environmental justice challenges, including an uphill battle to redevelop the Crawford plant. Indeed, the community is vulnerable to increased diesel emissions and many are concerned about gentrification and displacement. Despite these threats, La Villita leaders continue to fight for a healthier community and to hold those with power to principles of equitable community development.

As we say at LVEJO, la lucha no se acaba—the struggle doesn’t end!

A just transition of the Crawford site

Five years later, the Crawford coal plant continues to be an unwelcoming site in Little Village. Unlike many other coal-dependent communities, however, Little Village was not devastated economically by the closure of the coal plant and the loss of jobs. In fact, Crawford hired few workers from Little Village. Still, knowing that Crawford harmed the community’s health for so long and excluded the local workforce from good paying jobs, LVEJO is committed to seeing through a just transition of the site.

A just transition of the former coal plant means for us that community members are deeply involved in the redevelopment process, and that the site eventually becomes a catalyst of improved health, job access, and other economic activities that benefit long-time residents. Sitting on 72 acres of land, we believe there is a significant opportunity to transform the site into a campus that meets multiple needs identified by the community, and is a source of pride.

We have heard loud and clear that our community wants more green space, workforce training opportunities, urban agriculture, and culturally relevant small businesses like Los Mangos. It may seem like an unattainable dream—and there are certainly many obstacles—but with deep community support we truly believe that the just transition of Crawford is possible.

LVEJO youth leaders continue to highlight the harms to community health caused by Crawford. Photo: LVEJO

Challenges to redevelopment

We understand that the redevelopment of an old coal plant takes many years and is not easy. Unfortunately, since the closure of Crawford, LVEJO has learned about newly proposed projects and land-use plans that threaten to undermine the gains in air quality that we fought so hard for.

As Little Village is centrally located in Chicago and is in close proximity to major transportation arteries, city planners have designated Little Village as an area for new transportation and logistics centers. Without considering the health impact of diesel emissions to the surrounding community, city planners and local alderman are re-zoning industrial spaces, approving redevelopment projects, and leading land-use plans that neglect to incorporate environmental justice.

Instead of building upon the strengths and strong track record of environmentalism in the community, decision makers are threatening to make Little Village a sacrifice zone once again. An important example is the Unilever Expansion Project.

Diesel threats/Unilever

The nearby Unilever plant has been in the neighborhood since 1918, a testament to the industrial legacy the neighborhood has inherited. In February 2015, the Unilever plant, which produces Hellman’s Mayonnaise, announced it will increase production and bring on an additional 50 local jobs in the factory.

But these jobs come at a cost. Today, current zoning laws allow a major industrial factory like Unilever to expand right next to an elementary school of over 1,000 children and countless families. Every day, over 100 diesel trucks flow in and out of this area. Based on Unilever’s own traffic study, there will be an increase of up to 500 diesel trucks per day flowing in and out of the neighborhood.

Diesel engine trucks produce a lot of fine-particle pollutants that have been linked to asthma, respiratory disease, and overall damage to lung tissues. The additional diesel fumes will create health hazards, and increase the incidence of asthma and airborne related illnesses. Children are especially vulnerable. Due to these health concerns, LVEJO has launched a campaign to educate community members on the risks diesel poses, and to hold companies and decision makers accountable (see this and this).

Future energy jobs act

The failure of city planners and local officials to leverage the closure of the Crawford plant to redevelop the community in line with our needs has not stopped our efforts to organize and advocate for a new economy free of fossil fuels. Undaunted, LVEJO continues to fight for energy democracy and vehemently opposes false solutions to climate change.

LVEJO was vital to creating the Future Energy Jobs Act (FEJA) in Illinois that passed in December 2016 and had broad coalition and community support. Critically, LVEJO’s leadership on FEJA prioritized health and economic justice opportunities, including access to job training and clean energy jobs in low-income communities—a high priority to all community leaders. FEJA includes $33.25 million in annual spending on low-income energy efficiency programs, triple current spending levels on such programs in the state of Illinois.

This, coupled with millions of dollars committed to increases in bill assistance, will save money for families struggling to pay their energy bills. LVEJO participated as a lead architect of critical policies in the legislation related to serving low-income communities, including the new Illinois Solar for All—a nation-leading, low-income solar program with targeted goals for solar access in environmental justice communities funded at over $400 million.

The program is paired with a job training pipeline that will target recruitment in these same communities, with additional incentives to hire 2,000 individuals with criminal records and alumni of the foster care system.

With the passage of the Future Energy Jobs Act, low-income communities and communities of color, such as Little Village, will have significant opportunities to benefit from the resources committed to building a clean energy economy in the state.

Kim Wasserman of LVEJO and Jerry Lucero of Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization (PERRO) celebrate the 5 year anniversary of the closure of the Fisk and Crawford plants in Pilsen and Little Village. Crawford is in the background. Photo: Antonio Lopez

¡No al Carbón! ¡Queremos Justicia Ambiental!

In addition to ensuring that FEJA programs reach low-income and frontline communities, the just transition of the Crawford coal plant is a major goal of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. We believe the equitable redevelopment of the Crawford site can stand out as a model for other environmental justice communities working on just transition initiatives.

Indeed, across the Midwest environmental justice communities are leading the fight to close coal plants, incinerators, and other polluting factories. Community-led redevelopment of the Crawford plant would not only profoundly benefit Little Village, but also stand as a powerful symbol of environmental justice.

Dr. Antonio Lopez holds a doctorate in Borderlands History from the University of Texas at El Paso and has written extensively on anti-poverty and anti-racist social movements in Chicago. He currently serves as a senior advisor to the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. This blog was coauthored with Executive Director Kim Wasserman and Policy Director Juliana Pino of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO).

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that asbestos isn’t good for you. The mineral is a known carcinogen and has been tied to thousands of deaths from mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other asbestos-related diseases. On average, close to 3,000 people each year in the United States are diagnosed with mesothelioma. And for those unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with the incredibly rare disease, the results are often not good. Patients are usually given a grim prognosis averaging somewhere between 12 and 21 months.

Asbestos-related diseases are rarely quick to present themselves, often taking decades before symptoms finally show. When you breathe in or accidentally ingest the invisible fibers, they enter the lungs and may lodge themselves deep into the lung lining, known as the mesothelium. The area becomes irritated and over the years tumors begin to form. Mesothelioma is often difficult to diagnose, which means the resulting cancer is caught later and treatment options are more limited.

Breaking down barriers

Armed with that kind of information, one would assume it’d be a slam dunk to phase out asbestos use in the United States. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Last year, roughly 340 tons of raw asbestos were imported into the US, primarily for use in the chlor-alkali industry. Some types of asbestos-containing materials can also be imported. The Environmental Protection Agency tried to ban asbestos use nearly three decades ago, but many of the rules established by the department were overturned in a resulting court decision two years later. Today there’s hope things could change in the coming years, including renewed interest from the EPA.

In 2016, Congress approved the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and giving the EPA more power to regulate dangerous chemicals as they are introduced in an effort to more effectively remove those posing an unnecessary risk to public health. Chemicals deemed to pose an unreasonable risk during the evaluation process will be eliminated based on safety standards, as opposed to a risk-benefit balancing standard used under the previous TSCA requirements. What this means is that under the old TSCA, an unreasonable risk would require a cost-benefit analysis and any restrictions would have to be the least burdensome to addressing the risk. Under the Lautenberg Act, the “least burdensome” requirement is removed, though the EPA still needs to take costs of other regulatory actions and feasible alternatives into consideration.

The amendment also requires the agency to perform ongoing evaluations of chemicals to determine their risk to public health. In December, asbestos was included on a list of ten priority chemicals slated for evaluation and a scoping document for the mineral was issued in June. Problem formulation documents for each of the first ten chemicals are expected in December.

Drowning in red tape

Despite what the Lautenberg Act is doing to unshackle the EPA and allow it to properly regulate chemicals as it sees fit, the White House and Congress have taken actions that seem counterintuitive. For example, in January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order known as the “2-for-1 Order” forcing agencies to remove two existing rules for every new one they create. The risk here is that agencies like the EPA will have to pick which rules to enforce, creating a new series of public health concerns. When it comes to new hazards, the agency may be slower to react due to a new budget variable thrown into the mix. While it could help the agency identify rules that overlap others, it does create the risk of money taking precedence over public health.

In addition, the Senate’s recently introduced Regulatory Accountability Act, known in some circles as the ”License to Kill” Bill, poses a similar set of issues. If passed, the RAA could potentially resurrect much of the red tape that was removed by the Lautenberg Act. Once again, it would become difficult to regulate or ban chemicals in the future, despite dangers they may propose. For example, the EPA would have to prove that a full asbestos ban is the best option available to the agency compared to any other more cost-effective option. It also allows for anyone to challenge these decisions, which could delay a potential ruling for years or even halt the process entirely.

The EPA is also constrained by the people who have been appointed to several high level positions within the agency itself. Administrator Scott Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times, challenging rules he believes overstepped the agency’s boundaries. Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck, previously with the American Chemistry Council, lobbied for years against the very rules she has sworn to protect today. In 2009, Beck was criticized in a House report for attempting to undermine and create uncertainty regarding the EPA’s chemical evaluations while serving with the Office of Budget and Management for the Bush administration. The latest person nominated for an EPA position is Mike Dourson, who has, at times, proposed much less protective standards for chemicals than those in use by the federal government.

Where we stand now

This Mesothelioma Awareness Day, we find ourselves one step closer to seeing asbestos banned in the US. Today, while we honor those who’ve lost their struggle against this disease, we also show support for those still fighting mesothelioma and refusing to give in.

The EPA has, once again, taken the first steps toward a potential ban, but until that day comes the need for more awareness is a never-ending battle. Mesothelioma is a misunderstood disease and asbestos isn’t something people might consider at work or at home, which is why educating others is so important. Mesothelioma is largely avoidable, but the need to remain vigilant to prevent exposure is paramount.

Asbestos exposure isn’t something that will come to a screeching halt overnight. Hundreds of thousands of homes, buildings, and schools still harbor the mineral and that is likely to be the case for years to come. But stopping the flow of raw and imported asbestos into the US is a great first step to combating the issue at large.

About the author: Charles MacGregor is a health advocate specializing in education and awareness initiatives regarding mesothelioma and asbestos exposure. To follow along with the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance and participate in a MAD Twitter chat on September 26, find them at @CancerAlliance.